DOCSLIB.ORG

Lincoln and the Secession Crisis in Missouri

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lincoln and the Secession Crisis in Missouri DOUG NEHRING – FOR 2011 WEPNER SYMPOSIUM The American Civil War was one of the most divided times in this country’s history. The war not only divided the nation into two separate realms, but it also broke apart families, splitting apart fathers and sons and pitting brother against brother. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Border States, those states that held slaves but did not secede. While each of these states was important in its own right, Missouri was seen as a key factor in winning the war for the Union. President Lincoln’s reaction to the secession movement in Missouri would show his political prowess, as well as the careful steps that he took to win the war and pull the country back together for once and for all. While the state was in turmoil, Lincoln made sure that his military leadership enforced strict martial regulations, all while ensuring the maximum amount of liberty for the normal citizens of Missouri, garnering Union support throughout a thoroughly divided state. Historian Dennis K. Boman highlights this when he writes: Undoubtedly remembering the reaction of Marylanders when troops from Massachusetts marched through their state, Lincoln assured the Missourians that he would do all he could to avert a crisis, pledging… that he would not send ‘troops through Missouri, as over a bridge, for the purpose of operating in any other place, &anticipates none.’ Lincoln was willing to allow the state to remain neutral in the conflict and promised to do nothing to inflame the populace.1 Despite the overwhelming odds, Lincoln and his Generals managed to turn secessionist Missouri into a favorable atmosphere for victory in the Civil War. Following Lincoln’s election to the Presidency, many Southern states claimed their independence from the Union that held the country together. Despite his platform’s claims of having no intention of attempting to end slavery where it already existed, the political leaders of these states insisted that Lincoln was an Abolitionist, and would seek to destroy their way of life. 1 Boman, Dennis K. Lincoln and Citizens' Rights in Civil War Missouri: Balancing Freedom and Security (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2011), 24 Assemblies were organized in every slaveholding state to decide whether or not the respective states would stay in the Union under such an oppressive President. Almost every Secession Assembly voted in favor of leaving the Union, except those of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. These states, while holding a strong number of vehement Secessionists, ultimately could not see a valid reason for them to leave the security that the government of the United States could offer. In Missouri, this decision was not brought about without a strong struggle by those arguing in favor of secession. The state’s Governor, Claiborne F. Jackson, was elected on a platform of preserving the Union, but was in truth a staunch secessionist, bent on releasing Missouri from the bonds of a tyrannical leader such as Lincoln. Jackson and his followers debated heavily for secession, but to no avail, as other prominent political figures were just as quick to point out the flaws in their arguments, and argue for staying in the Union as the most effective way to have a semblance of stability in the coming war. The clear leader among these men was Hannibal R. Gamble, of St. Louis, who was quick to point out that the Southern way of life could not sustain itself without the industry of the North, where the goods grown in the South, such as cotton, indigo and rice were shipped to be made into useful products. Without this trade of goods, the economy of the South could not survive. After the vote to remain in the Union, Governor Jackson took it upon himself to save Missouri, so he assembled the Missouri State Guard, under the command of General Sterling Price to take the state and declare it a part of the Confederacy. This blatant move toward secession made by a supposedly pro-Union governor sparked outrage throughout the state in every pro-Union citizen. This was especially true in St. Louis, Missouri’s largest city and one of the economic centers of the state. Not only was the city extremely pro-Union, but it also contained one of the largest military arsenals in the country at the time, making it especially appealing to Jackson, who needed the munitions in order to successfully liberate Missouri from the Union. Jackson had appealed to Confederate President Jefferson Davis for weaponry with which he could take the arsenal before the Union forces could empty it, and was supplied with a good deal of heavy artillery with which to do so, which was smuggled through the city to their camp. Taking the arsenal would be a huge challenge, however, as the city of St. Louis was now well guarded under General Nathaniel Lyon, the commander of the Department of the West, who was brought to the city to keep the state from seceding. Lyon’s first controversial move was to seize all of the munitions in the arsenal and remove them to Illinois for safekeeping.2 This move by Lyon, made after the raid of Missouri’s only other federal arsenal in Liberty, only caused more turmoil, as it was a relief to some, but an outrage to others. Seen as an action made out of distrust of the population of St. Louis, and Missouri in general, the removal of these weapons made many Missourians who were on the fence about who they were going to support come out as full supporters of the Confederate cause within the state. Shortly after this event, and a failed meeting with Governor Jackson and General Price, Lyon was replaced as Commander of the Department of the West by General John C. Fremont. General Lyon would die at the Battle of Wilson’s Creek in April of 1861.3 Fremont’s command of Missouri was one of conflicting orders. He was quick to declare martial law, and to establish police actions within the city of St. Louis in order to keep the Union stronghold from falling to secessionists, something that was necessary, if not slightly excessive.4 Yet, there were many points in which Lincoln, upon hearing of a decree of Fremont’s, was 2 “Removal of Arms from Missouri” New York Times, April 27, 1861. 3 Adamson, Hans Christian, Rebellion in Missouri: 1861 (Philadelphia: Chilton Company, 1961), 257. 4 Boman, Lincoln and Citizens’ Rights in Civil War Missouri, 45-46. forced to immediately give one of his own rescinding the former. This was especially the case when Fremont would give an order that would run the risk of enraging the people of Missouri and sparking even more support of secession in the state. One such instance came on August 30, 1861, when Fremont issued a proclamation stating that anyone caught taking up arms against the United States government would be shot, and all slaves of disloyal persons were to be emancipated.5 This order was entirely contradictory to Missouri’s interim Governor, Hannibal R. Gamble’s offer of a full pardon to anyone in Missouri’s secessionist army under General Price who would lay down their arms, issued earlier that same month. This contradiction, as well as the emancipation of slaves within the state, angered President Lincoln, who refused to allow the release of slaves unless they were confiscated out of military necessity. These concerns were addressed in a well-worded letter to Fremont, who requested that Lincoln rescind the order if he was not pleased with it. This was done immediately.6 This unfortunate circumstance was not the only one of Fremont’s career in Missouri. From the outset, it was clear that Fremont was hesitant to take direct action against Governor Jackson and his army, but preferred to bolster the state with Union troops and safeguard many areas from secessionist advances. This action is admirable in its essence, but the policies that were carried out in order to do so served no purpose but to increase the frustrations of Missourians, especially those loyal to the Union. One such policy was carried out by one of Fremont’s subordinates, General John Pope. Pope was put in charge of Northern Missouri, where there was an overall lack of Confederate soldiers to cause problems for the Union troops. Pope’s soldiers were fiercely independent, and would generally think about the orders they were given before they decided if they wanted to carry them out. As tensions increased between 5 Boman, Lincoln and Citizens Rights in Civil War Missouri, 44. 6 Ibid. 45. Missourians and Union troops, Lincoln and his administration became increasingly frustrated with the situation. One such frustration was Pope’s General Orders No. 3, which allowed Union troops to search civilian homes if a reason presented itself. This power was greatly abused, prompting a letter from Governor Gamble to President Lincoln expressing concerns about the actions. Shortly after this letter was written General Orders No.3 was repealed.7 General Fremont was not without opportunity to capture Governor Jackson and his secessionist brigade and restore order to Missouri; he simply never took the chances that were presented to him. One such chance came to him as General Price made a slow advance toward the Missouri town of Lexington. Fremont did send a small garrison of troops to the town, but never made any other attempt to keep it, citing transportation issues. This excuse was without validity, as the town was located directly along the Missouri river, and the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad ran close by, both sources under complete Federal control.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SHELBY VI: HISTORY of the COUNTY DURING 1861 History Of
    CHAPTER VI. HISTORY OF THE COUNTY DURING 1861. The Legislature of 1861- Election of Delegates to the State Convention -The work of the Convention - The Winter of 1861 - After Fort Sumpter-- Public Meetings - The First Federal Troops -First Union Military Company- Burning of the Salt River Bridge -The Campaign against Mart Green -The Fight at Shelbina -Fre- mont's "Annihilation" of Green's Rebels-Miscellaneous Military Matters- Capt. Foreman's CompanyVisits Shelbyville -Arrest of Hon. John McAfee -Tom. Stacy's Company -Gen. Grant's First Military Services in the Civil War are Per- formed in Shelby County- Bushwhacking--Missouri Secession- The Gamble Government and Its Oath - Turning Out the " Disloyal" Officers. THE LEGISLATURE OF 1861. On the last day of December, 1860, the twenty-first General Assem- bly of Missouri met at Jefferson City. The retiring Governor, " Bob " M. Stewart, delivered a very conservative message, taking the middle ground between secession and abolitionism, and pleading strenuously for peace and moderation. He declared, among other things, that the people of Missouri " ought not to be frightened from their propriety by the past unfriendly legislation of the North, nor dragooned into secession by the restrictive legislation of the extreme South." He concluded with a thrilling appeal for the maintenance of the Union, depicting the inevitable result of secession, revolution and war. Many of Governor Stewart's predictions were afterward fulfilled with start- ling and fearful exactness. The inaugural of the new Governor,
    [Show full text]
  • Callaway County, Missouri During the Civil War a Thesis Presented to the Department of Humanities
    THE KINGDOM OF CALLAWAY: CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI DURING THE CIVIL WAR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS By ANDREW M. SAEGER NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY MARYVILLE, MISSOURI APRIL 2013 Kingdom of Callaway 1 Running Head: KINGDOM OF CALLAWAY The Kingdom of Callaway: Callaway County, Missouri During the Civil War Andrew M. Saeger Northwest Missouri State University THESIS APPROVED Thesis Advisor Date Dean of Graduate School Date Kingdom of Callaway 2 Abstract During the American Civil War, Callaway County, Missouri had strong sympathies for the Confederate States of America. As a rebellious region, Union forces occupied the county for much of the war, so local secessionists either stayed silent or faced arrest. After a tense, nonviolent interaction between a Federal regiment and a group of armed citizens from Callaway, a story grew about a Kingdom of Callaway. The legend of the Kingdom of Callaway is merely one characteristic of the curious history that makes Callaway County during the Civil War an intriguing study. Kingdom of Callaway 3 Introduction When Missouri chose not to secede from the United States at the beginning of the American Civil War, Callaway County chose its own path. The local Callawegians seceded from the state of Missouri and fashioned themselves into an independent nation they called the Kingdom of Callaway. Or so goes the popular legend. This makes a fascinating story, but Callaway County never seceded and never tried to form a sovereign kingdom. Although it is not as fantastic as some stories, the Civil War experience of Callaway County is a remarkable microcosm in the story of a sharply divided border state.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 11 No. 4 – Fall 2017
    Arkansas Military History Journal A Publication of the Arkansas National Guard Museum, Inc. Vol. 11 Fall 2017 No. 4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman Brigadier General John O. Payne Ex-Officio Vice Chairman Major General (Ret) Kendall Penn Ex-Officio Secretary Dr. Raymond D. Screws (Non-Voting) Ex-Officio Treasurer Colonel Damon N. Cluck Board Members Ex-Officio. Major Marden Hueter Ex-Officio. Captain Barry Owens At Large – Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Clement J. Papineau, Jr. At Large – Chief Master Sergeant Melvin E. McElyea At Large – Major Sharetta Glover CPT William Shannon (Non-Voting Consultant) Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Anderson (Non-Voting Consultant) Deanna Holdcraft (Non-Voting Consultant) Museum Staff Dr. Raymond D. Screws, Director/Journal Editor Erica McGraw, Museum Assistant, Journal Layout & Design Incorporated 27 June 1989 Arkansas Non-profit Corporation Cover Photograph: The Hempstead Rifles, a volunteer militia company of the 8th Arkansas Militia Regiment,Hempstead County Table of Contents Message from the Editor ........................................................................................................ 4 The Arkansas Militia in the Civil War ...................................................................................... 5 By COL Damon Cluck The Impact of World War II on the State of Arkansas ............................................................ 25 Hannah McConnell Featured Artifact: 155 mm C, Model of 1917 Schneider ....................................................... 29 By LTC Matthew W. Anderson Message from the Editor The previous two issues of the journal focused on WWI and Camp Pike to coincide with the centennial of the United States entry into the First World War and the construction of the Post now known as Camp Pike. In the coming year, commemoration of the Great War will still be important, with the centennial of the Armistice on 11 November 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Officer Selection and Training on the Successful Formation and Employment of U.S
    THE ROLE OF OFFICER SELECTION AND TRAINING ON THE SUCCESSFUL FORMATION AND EMPLOYMENT OF U.S. COLORED TROOPS IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, 1863-1865 A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History by DANIEL V. VAN EVERY, MAJOR, US ARMY B.S., Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota, 1999 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2011-01 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 10-06-2011 Master‘s Thesis AUG 2010 – JUN 2011 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER The Role of Officer Selection and Training on the Successful 5b.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle and Event
    Places and Major Events Reference Sheet (Map of Missouri with locations) 1. Wilson’s Creek- General Sterling Price of the Missouri State Guard and General McCulloch of the CSA defeated Federal troops under General Nathanial Lyon. General Lyon was killed during this engagement making him the highest ranking casualty of the war to that point. 2. New Madrid and Island No. 10 – From March 2 to April 8, 1862 Federal troops under General Ulysses S. Grant fought for control of Island No. 10 which had been controlled by Confederate forces for most of the war. This location allowed Confederates to impede Union invasion into the south. Brigadier General John P. McCown led the Confederate forces. The Union’s successful capture of the island was the first capture of a Confederate position on the Mississippi during the war. 3. Westport- Sometimes called the Gettysburg of the West the battle of Westport occurred in October of 1864 during General Sterling Price’s Missouri raid. This battle was the turning point in Price’s raid as superior Union forces under Major General Samuel R. Curtis forced Price’s army to retreat. This was the last major battle to be fought west of the Mississippi. 4. Cape Girardeau- On April 23, 1863 Union troops led by Brigadier General John McNeil faced Confederate Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke’s forces here. It was a relatively small engagement, but is significant because it was the running point in Marmaduke’s second raid into Missouri. 5. Camp Jackson- Brigadier General Nathanial Lyon led Federal troops to capture the state militia which had made camp here on May 10, 1861.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government in Missouri: the Crossroads Reached
    Missouri Law Review Volume 32 Issue 1 Winter 1967 Article 10 Winter 1967 Local Government in Missouri: The Crossroads Reached Peter W. Salsich Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter W. Salsich Jr., Local Government in Missouri: The Crossroads Reached, 32 MO. L. REV. (1967) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol32/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Salsich: Salsich: Local Government in Missouri LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN MISSOURI: THE CROSSROADS REACHED PETER W. SALsIcH, JR.* I. INTRODUCTION Would you believe that there are sixty-two pages on the Missouri statute books regulating first and second class cities, yet there are no first and second class cities in Missouri?1 Would you believe that policemen in fourth class cities may enforce laws of the state as well as of the city, but policemen in third class cities may not?2 Would you believe that many cities may regulate the activities of lightning rod agents, corn doctors, lung testers, and muscle developers within their city limits, but not the activities of awning salesmen or the maintenance of juke boxes?3 Would you believe that an 1808 law, enacted before Missouri
    [Show full text]
  • With Fremont in Missouri in 1861
    The Annals of Iowa Volume 24 Number 2 (Fall 1942) pps. 105-167 With Fremont in Missouri in 1861 ISSN 0003-4827 No known copyright restrictions. This work has been identified with a http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/">Rights Statement No Known Copyright. Recommended Citation "With Fremont in Missouri in 1861." The Annals of Iowa 24 (1942), 105-167. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17077/0003-4827.6181 Hosted by Iowa Research Online WITH FREMONT IN MISSOURI IN 1861 Letters of Samuel Ryan Curtis EDITED BY KENNETH E. COLTON This second installment of the letters of Samuel Ryan Curtis, Congressman, engineer, and soldier, continues the publication of his correspondence through the first year of the Civil War, begun in the July issue of The Annals of Iowa as "The Irrepressible Conflict of 1861." As this second series begins. Colonel S. R. Curtis is on his way east to Washington, to attend the special session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress, and hopeful of winning a general's star in the volunteer army of the United States. Meanwhile his troops, the 2nd Iowa Volun- teer Infantry, continues to guard the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad line, to which duty they had been ordered in June, one month before. The reader will be interested in Curtis' comment upon the problems of supply confronting the Federal forces in 1861, problems much in the public mind in 1942, facing another war. Of special interest in this series of the war correspondence are the accounts of the developing crisis in the military command of the Department of the West, under that eccentric, colorful and at times pathetic figure.
    [Show full text]
  • Johnston Site Bulletin A
    National Park Service Kennesaw Mountain U.S. Department of the Interior Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park Joseph E. Johnston, Soldier Introducing Mr. Johnston When the Civil War broke out, many of his military colleagues expected much of Joseph E. Johnston. By 1861, he had already been battle-hardened. A native of Virginia, Johnston attended the military academy at West Point, graduating with Robert E. Lee, future commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. A few years later, the young soldier served in the Black Hawk War of 1832, then against the Seminoles in Florida in 1838. In the Mexican War, Johnston was wounded twice and was soon thereafter promoted to colonel. By the outbreak of the Civil War, “Old Joe” was quartermaster-general of the United States Army. Early War Experience When war broke out in 1861, Johnston resigned his was heavily pressured to relieve the city, despite post in favor of the Confederacy, and was appointed his small numbers. Although Johnston ordered the Commanding General of the Army of the Shenan- commander of the Confederate garrison, Lieutenant doah. Later that year when the North launched its General John C. Pemberton, to attack in conjunction first major offensive, the general evaded a superior with his forces, the former refused. Without these force under Union General Patterson to join with men, attack was impractical. Johnston next or- Confederate General Beauregard at the First Battle of dered Pemberton to retreat and save his army from Manassas, and played a crucial role in the Rebel vic- capture. Pemberton had, however, been ordered tory there.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Images Index the Index Is Organized Alphabetically by Subject Followed by the Month and Year of the Issue, and the Page Number of the Article
    Military Images Magazine Magazine Index Military Images Index The index is organized alphabetically by subject followed by the month and year of the issue, and the page number of the article. Please refer back to this index periodically as issues are still being added. This is an index of Civil War era photographic images only, not magazine articles. Many of the photos are owned by private collectors or descendants of those pictured. Please contact Military Images magazine directly for more information at http://militaryimagesmagazine.com. Soldiers are Privates in the Infantry unless otherwise noted. Regiments are Infantry unless otherwise noted. Abbott, Lt. Edward. 17th U.S. Jul./Aug. 1996, page 22. Abbott, Francis H. Co A, 17th Virginia. Mar./Apr. 2008, page 14. Abbott, Henry H. 7th Indiana Cav. Jul./Aug. 1985, page 25. Abbott, Lt. Lemuel. 10th Vermont. Sep./Oct. 1991, page 11. Abercrombie, Brig.Gen. John. and staff. May/Jun. 2000, page 13. Abernathy, Macon. Co G, 10th Alabama. Nov./Dec. 2005, page 24. Ackerman, Andrew W. 11th New Jersey. Nov./Dec. 2003, page 21. Ackles, Lt. George. unknown. Jul./Aug. 1992, page 18. Acton, Capt. Frank. Co F, 12th New Jersey. Sep./Oct. 1989, page 21. Adair, William Penn. 2nd Cherokee Mounted Rifles. C.S.A. Sep./Oct. 1994, page 11. Adams, 1stLt. Allen. 21st New York. Nov./Dec. 1987, page 25; Nov./Dec. 1999, page 47. Adams, Charles Francis. 1st & 5th Massachusetts Cav. Sep./Oct. 2007, page 28. Adams, George. 6th New York Hy. Art. Winter 2015, page 44. Adams, Henry M. Co F, 83rd Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Grade Social Studies Curriculum Course Description: in Third Grade, Students Will Engage in a Yearlong Study of Our State of Missouri
    3rd Grade Social Studies Curriculum Course Description: In third grade, students will engage in a yearlong study of our state of Missouri. They will analyze the impact of geography, economics, and governmental structures to study both the history and contemporary society of Missouri. The study of Missouri requires that students generate and research compelling questions. Scope and Sequence: Quarter Unit Timeframe Unit 1: Physical Features of Missouri August 1 2 Unit 2: People of Missouri November-December Unit 3: Missouri and the Civil War January 3 4 Unit 4: Government of Missouri March-April Curriculum Revisions Tracking 2019-2020 Unit ONE: ● In Engaging Experiences we have added Another Way to do This 1, 2, 3, 5 ● EE4 needs to be removed ● Added a second way to complete Engaging Scenario Unit TWO: ● Removed graphic organizer of all tribes and only compare two tribes in EE4 ● EE 5 added another way to do this using map from textbook ● EE6 Modified timeline to be whole group class ● EE 7, 8 added another way to do this and add to the timeline from EE6 ● EE 9 added another way to do this ● EE 10 Add to timeline ● EE 11 Added another way to do this and add to timeline ● EE12 Unit 1: Physical Features of Missouri Subject: Social Studies Grade: 3 Name of Unit: Physical Features of Missouri Length of Unit: 1 week Board Approved: May 10, 2018 1 | P a g e Overview of Unit: This unit will discuss the physical characteristics of Missouri. You will review the regions, border states, and how geography has affected Missouri history.
    [Show full text]
  • 1868 State Census Cape Girardeau County Missouri
    1868 State Census Cape Girardeau County Missouri Transcribed by Bill Eddleman Cape Girardeau Co. Genealogical Society POBox389 Jackson, MO 63755 web site: http://www.rootsweb.com/-mocgcgs/index.htm i The 1868 State Census of Cape Girardeau County, Missouri Transcribed by Bill Eddleman All rights reserved Copyright© 2000 - Cape Girardeau Co. Genealogical Society Cape Girardeau Co. Genealogical Society PO Box 389 Jackson, MO 63755 THE 1868 STATE CENSUS OF _.# CAPE GIRARDEAUCOUNTY, MISSOURI The followingis takenfrom Missouri ArchivesBulletin, A Guide to CountyRecords on Microfilm (Lainhart 1992): "The need forstatistical information about the population by the government of MissouriTerritory resulted in the takingof a State census in the years 1814 and 1817. These census records listed only freewhite males. The next census was taken in 1821, the year statehoodwas achieved, and beginningin 1824 and followingat four( 4) year intervals through 1864 other statecensuses were taken. The last such was takenin 1876. The Census Act of 1824 and thereafterrequired that the sheriffsor assessors submit abstractsof their returnsto the Secretaryof State and that they filethe original returnswith the Clerks of the CountyCourts. Onlya veryfew of the StateCensuses have survived... " Only small partsof the 1840, 1844, 1868, and 1876 censuses have survivedfor a few counties (only the 1868 and 1876 censuses of Cape GirardeauCo.). The 1876 Cape Girardeau CountyState Census has been previously transcribed (Keller and Keller 1976). The 1868 State Census is knownto have survived onlyfor Cape Girardeau County. The 1868 censusis importantfor a number of reasons. Primarily, this is the firstcensus in which the fullnames of African-Americanswere recorded. Thus, it provides valuable information on African-Americans afteremancipation and beforethe 1870 Federal Census.
    [Show full text]
  • John Wolcott Phelps: the Civil War General Who Became a Forgotten Presidential Candidate in 1880
    Autumn 1970 VOL. XXXVIn No. 4 VERMONT History The GFROCEEDINGS of the VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY In 1880 he became Vermont's only presidential candidate ... John Wolcott Phelps: The Civil War General Who Became A Forgotten Presidential Candidate In 1880 By JOHN MCCLAUGHRY OWN Fifth Avenue and Broadway they came-first the long striding D colonel, then the men of the First Vermont Volunteers, each wear­ ing in his cap an evergreen sprig from his beloved Green Mountains. It was May, 1861, and New York City was alive with excitement about the Confederate rebellion. Crowds lined the streets to watch the fine new regiment and to marvel at the unusual size of the Green Mountain Boys. "More formidable troops fought notwith Allen, Stark or Crom­ well," exulted the New York Sun.! "Who is that big Vermont colonel?", asked a bystander. Back came the prompt reply, "That? Oh, that is old Ethan AlLen resurrected!"2 For at the head of this body of "earnest slavery-hating soldiers" marched John Wolcott Phelps. A fellow officer in the Union Army de­ scribed him as "a tall, middle aged, stooping, awkward looking man, clad in an old half-worn regulation Captain of Artillery uniform com­ plete, including a dilapidated soft felt hat with a well worn and long saved part of a black ostrich feather on one side. The wearer of these signs of former service was about the last man out of that eight hundred 1. Walter H. Crockett, History of Vermont (New York: 1921) Vol. III, p. 509. 2. Mary R. Cabot, ed., Annals of Brattleboro (Brattleboro: E.
    [Show full text]